1,200 calories in 500 calories out?

dlr165 wrote: »

So, everyone eats back their exercise calories? I personally don’t believe I burn anywhere near what it says I do.

I'd say that nearly all of the people around here who have lost their weight and maintained that loss eat back at least some of their exercise calories. Personally, I ate all of mine and had no problems losing. Other people find that a percentage of their exercise calories works better for them. Like all the rest of this weight loss thing, it's a bit of an experiment to see what works for you. You might try eating back 50% and seeing if you're still losing your targeted amount of weight and adjust from there. If you're following MFP's calorie recommendations, your deficit is already calculated into your calorie target. Accounting for your activity is something you'll have to incorporate into your maintenance, so it makes sense to start factoring it in early.

dlr165 wrote: »

So, everyone eats back their exercise calories? I personally don’t believe I burn anywhere near what it says I do.

I don't know what "it" is in your post, that you think is giving a too-high estimate. The MFP database? A fitness tracker? Something else?

Personally, I do and always have eaten back all my exercise calories . . . after learning what I could (as a non-scientist, with reasonable time investment) about how calorie expenditure works and how it relates to different evidence-based ways of estimating exercise calories. I estimate the calories with what I hope is reasonable care, and I don't use the same method for estimating every type of exercise I do.

In a sense, when someone buys a good brand/model of fitness tracker, and synchs it to MFP, they're out-sourcing that research and thought process - to pick the best way to estimate various types of activities' calories - to experts. That's not a terrible idea.

Even then, yes, those estimates can be wrong . . . but then relatively more of that effect - I speculate - is then attributable to how close to statistically average the individual is or isn't, and relatively less attributable to sub-ideal choice of estimating method.

In that context - as well as in the overall MFP calorie management context - it bothers me intellectually that people think any discrepancy between estimated calorie needs (for a given weight loss) and actual weight loss is due to bad estimates of exercise calories. The discrepancy can be due to an inaccurate estimate of resting calories (BMR/RMR), incorrect selection of activity multipliers to reach calorie goal, inaccurate exercise calorie estimates, sub-ideal food logging practices . . . among other potential causes.

I think we all just tend to assume the problem is in the exercise calories because we add them last, we add them often so we think about them, and it gives us an icky feeling in our stomach because we don't understand how they're derived.

For most, I think the "get a good fitness tracker and synch it" is probably the best place to start, then adjust intake on a percentage basis based on results after 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual periods).

Even so, I don't do that myself, because I'd figured out my personal calorie needs before I got my fitness tracker (a good brand/model that's reasonably on-point for others). The tracker's way off, for me. I suspect the reason is either the BMR estimate that's built in (but I haven't had an RMR lab test to evaluate my guess), or that it doesn't see small spontaneous movement very well (think fidgeting, but that's not all), plus possibly the nature of my food choices to a small extent.

(As context, I lost weight at expected rates, after an experimental/trial period to dial in my needs, and have maintained a healthy weight for 6+ years since, eating all the exercise calories . . . and having multiple periods where I couldn't exercise at all for up to weeks at a time so no exercise calories added then.)

For sure, ignoring exercise calories completely, because of worry that the estimate is too high, is about the most inaccurate approach of all, in an MFP context. That seems to be what OP initially proposed to do, at an extreme that would potentially be health-risking. If the calorie goal were less aggressive (1200 is minimum) or the exercise less substantial (maybe couple hundred, alongside a less aggressive loss rate), that might be fine, especially for someone substantially overweight. But a zero estimate for exercise calories is for sure wrong.

ETA P.S. It sounds like the OP - thankfully - is now revising her plan in a more health-promoting direction, which is great!

Almndbutta wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Almndbutta wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Almndbutta wrote: »

Hey, I’m 5’1 149 pounds. My goal is 120, is a 1200 calorie intake and burning 500 a day healthy for me?

No it's not healthy, probably not quite as bad as a 700 calorie diet and no exercise but still an awful thing to subject your body to.
Also unlikely to be sustainable.

Two things that should be your priority when dieting are health and sustainability, please think again.

Do you think consuming 1,700 calories and burning 500 would be a bad idea also? While eating health consciously or do you think my overall calories should be more than 1,200 at the end of the day?

For most, probably. For someone who is 5'1"? Maybe, maybe not. Are you female? Mostly sedentary outside of your 500 cals of intentional exercise? Elderly? If yes to all three, it might be OK to consume 1700 calories and burn 500 through intentional exercise.

Yes I’m a female & sedentary outside of my intentional workouts 28 years of age.

Then no, as you're not elderly. As my post said, "if yes to all three..."

Then no, not a good idea, as you're not elderly.